nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Queen Lucy I of Lovia
So prince Thomas was born in '48, when Lucy was in her late 50's? Does not sound possible in those days. Is this a mistake or something: he would more likely to be her grandson. Please explain or change. Dr. Magnus 15:55, February 7, 2010 (UTC) :She would have been 54 when Prince Thomas was born, wonder if that was possible at that time, I think the creator of Queen Lucy I of Lovia wants us to start a forum on this issue here --Lars Washington 16:43, February 7, 2010 (UTC) ::I do not know what the creator was thinking, Aesopos. I do know that women giving birth above the age of 50 is extremely rare today (even with help of IVF and other fertility treatments), let alone in those days (the early 1950's that is). Also, the 30-year gap between the first two sons and the lasts is strange. It has to be changed, or at least "explained" in the article. Dr. Magnus 18:25, February 7, 2010 (UTC) :::I guess, we better ask Dimi first, before acting here. --Lars Washington 08:59, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::Seems okay to me. I personnaly believe it to be a typing error. If Thomas would have been born in 1918 or even as late as 1928 it would be fine. But this just does not seem realistic at all. He is old enough to have been Lucy's grandson, after all. Perhaps it would be better if he wás her grandson? :) Dr. Magnus 12:45, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::This age gap IS Possible! Pierlot McCrooke 14:48, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::No, it is not. Not in those days, and not without fertility treatments. Also: if a woman gives birth at such an age (especially in those days) there is a very large change of the child being sickly or suffering from a mental or physical malfunction. No, Pierlot, it is a one in a million chance of a woman her age giving birth to a completely healthy, strong newborn son when she gave birth for the last time almost 35 years earlier. Ever heard of the word "menopauze"? Learn your biology mate! Dr. Magnus 17:41, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Ach magnus, this mother is really seldsame Pierlot McCrooke 17:59, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Well, you made me curious, I looked it up on the online harbor or knowledge which states: the most typical age range for menopause (last period) is between the ages of 40 and 602 and the average age for last period is 51 years. So, Dimi is correct and also Pierlo apparently knows what he's talking about... --Lars Washington 18:12, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Still it is strange and unusual. The 34 year gap has no explanation. And the fact the child came out healthy and strong is also unusual. Nah, I don't buy it. Must be a mistake! Dr. Magnus 18:24, February 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Strange but true! And please use colons Magnus. 13:15, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::Very starnge indeed. A bit controversial also. Was Thomas really Lucy's biological son? If not, the dynasty is no longer valid... Dr. Magnus 13:23, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::He was . 13:24, February 9, 2010 (UTC) Magnus was right Queen Lucy could not have given birth to a child at that age. Now, I would like to ask you guys what you think is the best solution. Obviously, we can't make him an adopted son or so. Also, we can hardly move Queen Lucy's birthdate, 'cause the entire royal family should be changed then. Our options, without disturbing the monarchy, are: * making Prince Thomas older. That would be possible, but it might give a problem in his relationship: his wife already is a lot younger... * adding an extra generation? It's a big move... Then we should also find a cause of death for that new guy. * ...? Help me out here guys. 17:47, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :Keep it as it is Pierlot McCrooke 19:41, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Make Thomas a grandson of Prince Noah? Or is that too extreme? Probably make a new generation. If you make him older you'll have to make his wife older and then you'll have the same problem with her. You could say the 'new guy' refused to take the throne due to extreme old age. Semyon Edikovich 20:07, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :::I fear that is indeed the best option. 06:49, June 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think not. I have once read of a woman that had a child born in the fifties and in the nineties (source: wikipedia) Pierlot McCrooke 07:05, June 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::So the cureent situation is possible Pierlot McCrooke 07:06, June 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::Just change Thomas' birth year with 15 years. Lucy could have easily had a son at the age of 40, after all. Thomas was married at 40 to a woman aged 29 - that isn't much of a age difference (not enough to cause serious controversy as is hinted in the article). If he were to be made 15 years older, he would have been born when Lucy was in here 40's (an unexpected child, but not unwanted nor impossible). He would have been almost 60 when he married our Queen Mother, that way. And a man who is 60 years old can father a child, even men in their 80's are known to have fathered children - there is no such thing as 'male menopause'. Is aging Thomas not the best solution? :-) BastardRoyale 07:30, June 19, 2010 (UTC)